You cannot be both pro-Evolution and anti-Religion

[ballin4life]

The theory of evolution states that traits and behaviors that are advantageous to the reproduction of a species will be more likely to survive to future generations. The most commonly described mechanism for this process is genetics - I have advantageous trait A, which allows me to have lots of children, and my genetics pass trait A down to my children. However, there are other possible mechanisms for the transfer of advantageous behaviors or traits to future generations. One commonly cited example is cultural evolution - cultures with beneficial behaviors and traits tend to survive and propagate, while cultures with harmful behaviors tend to die out.

The influence of cultural evolution is clearly seen in human history. For a time, human culture consisted of small, isolated bands of hunter-gatherers. However, when agriculture was invented, this new cultural paradigm outcompeted the hunter-gatherer societies. We can trace similar patterns even to fairly recent times. One might even argue that the cultural paradigm of the "communist" countries was eventually outcompeted by the "capitalist" countries in the Cold War era.

So overall, the process behind cultural evolution makes sense and fits quite well with our knowledge of genetic evolution. However, just as we must ask how certain genetic traits fit in with genetic evolution (e.g. regional differences in eye color), we must also ask how certain cultural traits fit in with cultural evolution. One prominent trait of nearly every culture that we have ever observed is religion. Now, many advocates of evolution would argue that religion is a net negative to society. They claim that religious ideology inhibits advancement (e.g. through science). One would think this claim implies that religion will actually lower the chance of a given culture surviving.

But if that is the case, why is religion so prevalent amongst cultures in the first place? Why has there never arisen a non-religious culture which, due to its natural advantage, went on to outcompete the multitude or religious cultures? It seems we must conclude that the advantages of religion likely outweighed the negatives.

You therefore must either reject evolution or admit that, all else equal, a religious culture is likely to be superior to a non-religious culture.

 

[Dre89]

As I've showed before, statistics show religious people are happier and healthier.

One athiest argued that was why religion exists as an evolutionary tool.

The theist might say that religion is intrinsic in us because God exists. I actually think the pressure is on the atheist to find evolutionary benefits and positives of religion, otherwise they have no justification for believing it is of evolutionary benefit, which leaves us with the theistic claim.

 

[Ocean]

this is a misunderstanding of the basics of evolution.

evolution promotes traits that are advantage to an individual, however evolution doesn't always promote traits that are an advantage for an entire species.

for example, trees. why do trees grow to be +50ft tall? to get as much sunlight as possible. however, to get to these heights, it takes a significant amount of resources (you need more water and nutrients to be able to maintain health, not to mention it's more work to pump those upwards). the odd thing about this is sunlight is just as freely available to the ground, as long as nothing gets in the way. if all trees were 10ft tall, then there wouldn't be a problem, but as soon as a tree grows to be 11ft tall, then that tree gets more sunlight and competition weeds out all the 10ft trees, until only 11ft (or above) trees are left, and the process repeats until the trees get to a height where they can no long sustain themselves and it peaks. at this state, they are no better off than they were as 10ft trees as a whole. the 11ft tree had an advantage over the others, but by causing a selection of taller trees it created a disadvantage for the species.

religion isn't necessarily a positive trait for advancement, but this doesn't stop itself from carrying on within culture. a catholic person may have a lot of children that carry on catholicism but this has nothing to do with catholicism being good or bad, it's a product of the individual advantage (having lots of children). religion survived not because it was beneficial, but because in olden times if you didn't listen to the people who had survived before you, it was very likely for you to end up dead, and one of the things that the people before you taught you was religion. it was passed along, with the survival information and was passed down until it became tradition. scientific advancement may be good for society but it's not really good on an individual basis; it doesn't really help your kids survive, so it's a lot easier to just have a crap load of kids instead. these "good for society but bad for individual survival" traits don't come out until survival is no longer a main concern. also, a lot of the moral standards of religion could have survival roots, such as not having copious amounts of sex with multiple people because of the risk of infection, or don't eat certain types of meat because of risk of infection as well. a lot of these are no longer relevant because of scientific/medical advancement, but the moral standard still exists because of tradition.

"if natural selection was optimizing, life on earth would be one smooth, uniform layer of bacteria. the wild diversity that we see around us is entirely a product of the failure of natural selection to favor that which is "best" from the standpoint of species fitness." - Joseph Heath

 

[1048576]

Ignorance is bliss. It explains everything. Ignorance is also selfish, because your fallacious beliefs impose negative externalities on others. I would see religion as a great thing if the religious people weren't required to believe superstitious nonsense that dragged down the quality of the lives of people outside their clique. Basically every bad thing (TM) that has ever happened in history has been ignorance motivated. They get their kicks from hurting good, wholesome Muslims, gay people, athiests, Americans, etc... so yeah maybe they're happier, and maybe they reproduce more, but the world would be better off without them.

Basically evolution obviously exists, and it isn't good or bad. Religion exists, and it's very bad. I'd consider it the greatest evil of humankind. It is the embodiment of willful ignorance. Ignorance is selfish. Selfish is bad.

I realize these thoughts aren't presented coherently. Oh well.

 

[ballin4life]

As I've showed before, statistics show religious people are happier and healthier.

I don't think this supposed relationship has causation. Also I am wary of statistics that claim to measure "happiness", especially if that happiness is self reported.

this is a misunderstanding of the basics of evolution.

evolution promotes traits that are advantage to an individual, however evolution doesn't always promote traits that are an advantage for an entire species.

for example, trees. why do trees grow to be +50ft tall? to get as much sunlight as possible. however, to get to these heights, it takes a significant amount of resources (you need more water and nutrients to be able to maintain health, not to mention it's more work to pump those upwards). the odd thing about this is sunlight is just as freely available to the ground, as long as nothing gets in the way. if all trees were 10ft tall, then there wouldn't be a problem, but as soon as a tree grows to be 11ft tall, then that tree gets more sunlight and competition weeds out all the 10ft trees, until only 11ft (or above) trees are left, and the process repeats until the trees get to a height where they can no long sustain themselves and it peaks. at this state, they are no better off than they were as 10ft trees as a whole. the 11ft tree had an advantage over the others, but by causing a selection of taller trees it created a disadvantage for the species.

religion isn't necessarily a positive trait for advancement, but this doesn't stop itself from carrying on within culture. a catholic person may have a lot of children that carry on catholicism but this has nothing to do with catholicism being good or bad, it's a product of the individual advantage (having lots of children). religion survived not because it was beneficial, but because in olden times if you didn't listen to the people who had survived before you, it was very likely for you to end up dead, and one of the things that the people before you taught you was religion. it was passed along, with the survival information and was passed down until it became tradition. scientific advancement may be good for society but it's not really good on an individual basis; it doesn't really help your kids survive, so it's a lot easier to just have a crap load of kids instead. these "good for society but bad for individual survival" traits don't come out until survival is no longer a main concern. also, a lot of the moral standards of religion could have survival roots, such as not having copious amounts of sex with multiple people because of the risk of infection, or don't eat certain types of meat because of risk of infection as well. a lot of these are no longer relevant because of scientific/medical advancement, but the moral standard still exists because of tradition.

"if natural selection was optimizing, life on earth would be one smooth, uniform layer of bacteria. the wild diversity that we see around us is entirely a product of the failure of natural selection to favor that which is "best" from the standpoint of species fitness." - Joseph Heath[/SIZE]

I just don't see what this has to do with anything. I don't think anyone disputes cultural evolution in the fashion you are claiming, and I don't see the connection to the trees. Again, cultural evolution is about CULTURES surviving and propagating. Religion is a behavior of a culture; it isn't genetic and it doesn't have to do with individuals directly. If religion were such a large disadvantage, then a non-religious culture would be able to survive and propagate better than a religious one.

Ignorance is bliss. It explains everything. Ignorance is also selfish, because your fallacious beliefs impose negative externalities on others. I would see religion as a great thing if the religious people weren't required to believe superstitious nonsense that dragged down the quality of the lives of people outside their clique. Basically every bad thing (TM) that has ever happened in history has been ignorance motivated. They get their kicks from hurting good, wholesome Muslims, gay people, athiests, Americans, etc... so yeah maybe they're happier, and maybe they reproduce more, but the world would be better off without them.

Basically evolution obviously exists, and it isn't good or bad. Religion exists, and it's very bad. I'd consider it the greatest evil of humankind. It is the embodiment of willful ignorance. Ignorance is selfish. Selfish is bad.

I realize these thoughts aren't presented coherently. Oh well.

See, I agree with this in many ways. Religion has led people to do many stupid things, like start wars or reject advancements. But if that is the case then why is it such a common trait amongst ALL cultures? Wouldn't a non-religious culture have a massive advantage and be more likely to survive and thrive?

 

[1048576]

Because they're parasites. The parasitic members make more of themselves, while the hosts slowly die off. Eventually the entire culture is parasites. It's like society's prisoners dilemma.

 

[Dre89]

Ocean and Numbers, both you have provided reasons why religion has survived, but not necessraily why it was there in the first place.

 

[1048576]

There's a million possible reasons. I won't speculate until we can test it. Fear of the unknown is coming to the top of my head though.

 

[ciaza]

As far as I see it, cultures had it because it's a way of explaining the unexplainable. People want answers, so they use God of the Gaps. A non-religious culture may very well have a massive advantage, and in fact we may just be on the doorstep of being one of them, thanks to scientific advancement being able to explain the previously unexplainable. Since notions of God/s go way back, it's no surprise that as cultures grew larger, the religion grew along with it. That doesn't mean it was the cause of its success though.

 

[Theftz22]

Oh I thought this was gonna be a thread about Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism. And then I was gonna facepalm.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So overall, the process behind cultural evolution makes sense and fits quite well with our knowledge of genetic evolution. However, just as we must ask how certain genetic traits fit in with genetic evolution (e.g. regional differences in eye color), we must also ask how certain cultural traits fit in with cultural evolution. One prominent trait of nearly every culture that we have ever observed is religion. Now, many advocates of evolution would argue that religion is a net negative to society. They claim that religious ideology inhibits advancement (e.g. through science). One would think this claim implies that religion will actually lower the chance of a given culture surviving.

You'd be right to a certain degree. While religion often works as a retardant to technology and advancement, it also brings with it several serious advantages: a cooperative public (try getting secular humanists or PEARLists to back a feudalistic system), more weight on reproduction (see also: "Every Sperm is Sacred"), and usually far less moral qualms about dealing with other infringing societies ("God requires you to kill them" can be one hell of a motivator). Furthermore, religion itself has made itself very, very resilient by nature. Of course it's going to survive through cultural evolution.

However, this can grind to a screeching halt, and that's when religion works too hard as a retardant to society. I'm going to give a very blunt example: if any modern, western, secular state in today's world had as low a value of life as the Islamic fundamentalists do, there would be no long-running conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and no long-running diplomatic stalemate with Iran. Tehran, Baghdad, and Kabul would be nothing but rubble. The countryside would be full of radioactive fallout and charred skeletons. Our culture has evolved to the point where we recognize that actually doing that would be immoral to an extreme extent. At the same time though, this gives our culture an astounding resilience; no other culture is going to take over by force, at least.

Why has there never arisen a non-religious culture which, due to its natural advantage, went on to outcompete the multitude or religious cultures?

Modern secular humanism. Compare the quality of life in, say, Norway, to the quality of life in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia and tell me that we didn't "outcompete" them. The fact that they still exist has more or less entirely to do with the fact that we won't force them to outgrow their bronze-age shackles. We aren't out to force our values on them, and they aren't interested in tasting the fruits of the first world so they don't take them voluntarily. If we did try to force our culture on them... well, again, who has the gigantic nuclear stockpile and who has maybe 15 miles of railroad?

The main issue here is that religion had the advantage for a while because of how it worked. Nowadays? Not so much. Technology has simply changed how life works, and any religion that conflicts with it drags its proponents down considerably.

Also, I'm with underdogs, this thread title is very deceiving.

Maybe a last rebuttal is in order: just because something worked better for a while doesn't mean it is better.

Ocean and Numbers, both you have provided reasons why religion has survived, but not necessraily why it was there in the first place.

God of the gaps, societal control, etc. Why does it need a reason? When a schizophreniac sees things, there doesn't have to be deeper meaning behind it. When a new cult starts, they're often seen as crazy. Why should the religions that did stand the test of time be any different?

 

[rvkevin]

1. “Cultural evolution” has no relation to the theory of evolution. Evolution does not select at the species or cultural level. Talking about this at the cultural level doesn’t make any sense, even when you are talking about societal behaviors. Cultures don’t propagate, cultures don’t exhibit behaviors; individuals do, and when you aggregate them, you get a cultural effect.

2. How common something is does not tell you how beneficial it is. Something can be prevalent in every (or nearly every) culture, yet not be advantageous. Something can be universal in a culture without being advantageous. For example, the common cold. Actually, since your claim is religion in general is shared by every culture and not a specific religion, the example could simply be stated as viruses. Consider another example to see just how silly this point is, consider the mosquito. It is a universal Mosquito behavior to fly towards fly zappers; therefore such a behavior must be beneficial to the propagation of their species; or not.

3. “Good” and “bad” are not related to reproductive fitness. Something can be “bad” without being detrimental to reproductive fitness. For women, this would mean any negative thing that happens to them after menopause. Something can be “good” while being detrimental to reproductive fitness. Take Person A and Person B and put them in a room. Person A is a pacifist. Person B is a psychopath. I think you get the point.

4. There is no reason to think that specific beliefs or religion is genetically passed down. For example, people don’t have an English gene; they have the capacity to learn English. There would need to be supporting evidence to conclude that religious thought was somewhat genetically linked.

5. There have already been several evolutionary hypotheses proposed for the high prevalence of religion that don't treat religion as an advantageous behavior. Children being susceptible to authority or hyperactive pattern detection are the two that come immediately to mind. In these hypotheses, religion is a natural byproduct of an advantageous trait, kind of like how sickle cell anemia is a byproduct of increased malaria immunity, or how masturbation is a byproduct of an active sex drive. Also, given these hypotheses, the origin of religion is beyond the scope of evolution.

6. The conditions under which our genes were selected are not the same as now, so genes that were selected because they were advantageous can now, in a different context, be detrimental. This should go without saying. We are no longer living on the Serengeti. Even if you successfully argue that they were once advantageous, you then have to argue that the context in which they are advantageous has not changed, which means that you need to specify what that context is.

 

[Battlecow]

RVkevin makes most of the points I wanted to make.

Basically, even if we take it for granted that traits which are present in "successful" societies are also beneficial, one could argue that we've outgrown religion; it got us to a point where our society was advanced enough to instill moral values without it, and now we're (slowly) outgrowing it. I mean, compare the percentage of religious people now to the percentage twenty years ago- I bet the atheists are gaining ground.

 

[ballin4life]

1. “Cultural evolution” has no relation to the theory of evolution. Evolution does not select at the species or cultural level. Talking about this at the cultural level doesn’t make any sense, even when you are talking about societal behaviors. Cultures don’t propagate, cultures don’t exhibit behaviors; individuals do, and when you aggregate them, you get a cultural effect.

Depends what you mean by "relation". Cultural evolution has little to do with genetics (as I stated in the OP), but a lot to do with selection for advantageous traits. Cultures do propagate, and cultures with certain characteristics tend to propagate more than others.

2. How common something is does not tell you how beneficial it is. Something can be prevalent in every (or nearly every) culture, yet not be advantageous. Something can be universal in a culture without being advantageous. For example, the common cold. Actually, since your claim is religion in general is shared by every culture and not a specific religion, the example could simply be stated as viruses. Consider another example to see just how silly this point is, consider the mosquito. It is a universal Mosquito behavior to fly towards fly zappers; therefore such a behavior must be beneficial to the propagation of their species; or not.

The mosquito doesn't seem like a good analogy to me. The tendency to fly towards zappers was irrelevant for a long time because, you know, zappers didn't exist.

Do you agree that a non-religious society could exist? Do you agree that a non-religious society has advantages over a religious society? Then why didn't non-religious societies become prevalent?

3. “Good” and “bad” are not related to reproductive fitness. Something can be “bad” without being detrimental to reproductive fitness. For women, this would mean any negative thing that happens to them after menopause. Something can be “good” while being detrimental to reproductive fitness. Take Person A and Person B and put them in a room. Person A is a pacifist. Person B is a psychopath. I think you get the point.

Don't see how this is relevant - I think it's clear why one would think religion would be detrimental to the propagation of a culture.

4. There is no reason to think that specific beliefs or religion is genetically passed down. For example, people don’t have an English gene; they have the capacity to learn English. There would need to be supporting evidence to conclude that religious thought was somewhat genetically linked.

lolwut? Did you read the first paragraph of the OP? I never said religion is genetic.

5. There have already been several evolutionary hypotheses proposed for the high prevalence of religion that don't treat religion as an advantageous behavior. Children being susceptible to authority or hyperactive pattern detection are the two that come immediately to mind. In these hypotheses, religion is a natural byproduct of an advantageous trait, kind of like how sickle cell anemia is a byproduct of increased malaria immunity, or how masturbation is a byproduct of an active sex drive. Also, given these hypotheses, the origin of religion is beyond the scope of evolution.

That's possible, but it seems like the negatives would be significant. Anyway, this is basically what I was saying in the OP - you can't say religion is a negative.

6. The conditions under which our genes were selected are not the same as now, so genes that were selected because they were advantageous can now, in a different context, be detrimental. This should go without saying. We are no longer living on the Serengeti. Even if you successfully argue that they were once advantageous, you then have to argue that the context in which they are advantageous has not changed, which means that you need to specify what that context is.

I have to argue that circumstances HAVEN'T changed? Proving a negative much?

 

[Dre89]

BPC- God of the gaps etc. are terrible speculations for why religion exists in the first place.

What I'm asking is why the capacity to develop notions of God, submitting to something beyond us (which no other animal does), the supernatural are even possible by the human mind.

Not only that, but this has been virtually universal amongst humanity. I'm not saying this is proof of God's existence, but the universality if it suggests to me it must be there for some purpose, evolutionary or spiritual.

 

[A1lion835]

Just going to throw this out there: the last time people tried to apply Darwinian evolution to human culture, I think they called it something like "Social Darwinism." Make of that what you will - I know it's not yet an argument.

Maybe religious cultures are easier to mobilize than atheistic ones. Maybe some gene that made women attracted to religious men was made popular a few thousand years ago. Taking something as complex as religious impact on the spreading of culture and asking "Why?" is insane. Religious cultures tend to thrive: why? Most humans have a gene that releases good-feeling stuff when they eat fat, presumably because eating as much fat as you could was usually a good thing before the Agricultural Revolution. Trying to trace a web of connections between different factors on human population of the world isn't easy and probably isn't possible. A statistician will tell you your sample size is too small. A scientist will say you've got too many independent variables. I'll shrug my shoulders and go eat a bowl of cereal.

The question "Why are religious cultures so dominant?" isn't one I think can be answered by current human understanding. If you want to go run a few hundred simulations of cultural development, go ahead. Until then you have one piece of data you're working off of.

 

[Dre89]

Firstly, religion has been universal to humanity. I don't think people will contest that premise.

No one has explained why religion exists in the first place, and why whatever good it supposedly achieves couldn't be achieved without it, seeing as every other animal has achieved this goal without it.

And Alion saying that the reason behind the existence and universality of religion is unintelligible is very convenient for the athiest, because the athiest needs to find an evolutionary benefit of religion to explain its existence.

I'm curious to know what this reason is.

 

[AltF4]

Ballin, I think rvkevin took the words right out of my mouth.

But primarily it's that religious belief is not hereditary. But you brushed this aside so quickly. That is a requirement for evolution to occur. Religion is only hereditary is a highly metaphorical sense, as children often tend to become like their parents for completely non biological reasons. But not actual genetic hereditary behavior.

For example, consider homosexuality. For obvious reasons, homosexuality cannot be hereditary. For this reason evolution has not caused it to become extinct. Despite it being "bad for reproduction" it is immune to evolutionary effects because it's a trait not passed down.

A penchant for the superstitious is clearly present in most humans. Humans also have millions of other failures of supposed "design". This is the folly you get when you think of humans as the end result of a process of design. Instead of what we are: An arbitrary middle point along an evolutionary process.

 

[SuperBowser]

For example, consider homosexuality. For obvious reasons, homosexuality cannot be hereditary. For this reason evolution has not caused it to become extinct. Despite it being "bad for reproduction" it is immune to evolutionary effects because it's a trait not passed down.

This is not true. Homosexuality most certainly could be hereditary.

A convoluted example: resistance to malaria + sickle cell disease.

 

[Alien Vision]

Ocean and Numbers, both you have provided reasons why religion has survived, but not necessraily why it was there in the first place.

I would like to chime in here.

If you guys haven't heard of Ishmael. Look him up.

-
Ishmael proposes that the story of Genesis was written by the Semites and later adapted to work within Hebrew and Christian belief structures. He proposes that Abels extinction metaphorically represents the nomadic Semites' losing the conflict with agriculturalists. As they were driven further into the Arabian peninsula, the Semites became isolated from other herding cultures and, according to Ishmael, illustrated their plight through oral history, which was later adopted into the Hebrew book of Genesis.

Ishmael denies that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was forbidden to humans simply to test humans' self-control. Instead, he proposes that the Tree represents the choice to bear the responsibility of deciding which species live and which die. This is a decision agricultural peoples make when deciding which organisms to cultivate, which to displace, and which to kill in protection of the first.

Ishmael explains that the Fall of Adam represents the Semitic belief that, once mankind usurps this responsibility - historically decided through natural ecology (i.e. food chains) - that mankind will perish. He cites as fulfillment of this prophecy contemporary environmental crises such as endangered or extinct species, global warming, and modern mental illnesses.

-

I don't need proof that God exists. All of the ''proof'' I need is by looking at all of the ridiculous claims people make. The errors aren't in the entire religious belief.. It's in the people. Watch how easy they are shut down by atheists who know how to argue competently. Watch at how they lash out just as easy as people who believe in ghosts, aliens, luck, and any other nonsensical source you can think of.

I've been doing my own kind of research, and I can tell you 100% that we do not need God. We can do everything without God. So what is the point of having him? This is my theory..

I believe that there are elements in a human mind (subconsciously) that provokes a reason to create more than what is really there so we are able to control it (because we created it) thus making humans a mad scientist in a way. We created purpose, reason. We created God, luck, aliens, ghosts, and all of these things that can't be proven or disproven, but it's not that hard to tell when something is completely off. They are nothing more but children in adult bodies. God is their imaginary friend, and they used God as a leverage. People rely on EVERYTHING but themselves, so they created something they can put all of their reliability on; since they can't rely on themselves because of how god damn weak they've become. Although it may not be their fault since we are influenced vicariously aswell, and there are many braindead families out there thinking God is more important than food and water. So I digress.

God was created because of fear, and control.

 

[vVv Rapture]

This is not true. Homosexuality most certainly could be hereditary.

A convoluted example: resistance to malaria + sickle cell disease.

It's not heriditary in the sense that there's a gene that triggers sexual orientation. If there is, I don't know about it or the science world doesn't. It could exist, though, but as far as I know it doesnt.

I don't see how that example has anything to do with this, though. Care to explain?

 

[AltF4]

This is not true. Homosexuality most certainly could be hereditary.

A convoluted example: resistance to malaria + sickle cell disease.

Yes, point taken. That was probably a bad example, but the larger point remains.

 

[SuperBowser]

It's not heriditary in the sense that there's a gene that triggers sexual orientation. If there is, I don't know about it or the science world doesn't. It could exist, though, but as far as I know it doesnt.

I don't see how that example has anything to do with this, though. Care to explain?

Sickle cell disease is a recessive gene disorder. You must inherit the sickle cell allele from both parents. While this can be a deadly disease, a much larger proportion of people are carriers - they inherited the gene from one parent only. They can pass the disease to their offspring, but they do not suffer it themselves. At first glance, you may assume the sickle cell trait is a disadvantage to survival. However, carriers actually have protection against malaria! Because this advantage outweighed the risks of sickle cell disease in the population as a whole, the gene was able to propagate itself.


Similarly, homosexuality may work under such a mechanism. While a much larger number of genes will likely play a role, it is possible that "carriers" of these genes hold survival advantages. For example, they may have greater fertility, intelligence, language skills etc.

 

[vVv Rapture]

Sickle cell disease is a recessive gene disorder. You must inherit the sickle cell allele from both parents. While this can be a deadly disease, a much larger proportion of people are carriers - they inherited the gene from one parent only. They can pass the disease to their offspring, but they do not suffer it themselves. At first glance, you may assume the sickle cell trait is a disadvantage to survival. However, carriers actually have protection against malaria! Because this advantage outweighed the risks of sickle cell disease in the population as a whole, the gene was able to propagate itself.

Similarly, homosexuality may work under such a mechanism. While a much larger number of genes will likely play a role, it is possible that "carriers" of these genes hold survival advantages. For example, they may have greater fertility, intelligence, language skills etc.

Right, but that's assumin that homosexuality is a gene at all, which it isn't. I'm not saying that people can't be "born" homesexual, but the concept and actual physicality are two different things (and, let me make this clear, I have no problem with homosexuality, figured I'd say that before this gets any deeper).

Also, the gene didn't really propagate because avoiding malaria was better than sickle-cell disease because sickle-cell disease didn't exist untl sickle-cell actually became a problem since many people don't live in areas where malaria runs rampant. It was only an adaptation to avoid malaria, but once it did that, it ended there. There was nothing to avoid the consequences of having sickle in the first place. It did its job by avoiding malaria, that's it.

Likewise, being a "carrier" of a gene that doesn't really exist probably means nothing. Maybe there's a cause, but if there is, it's very likely that it has nothing to do with genetics because it could just be a random outcome of something else. No one would know that having homosexual tendencies would be the cause of anything until that link is made and acknowledged, just as no one could ever find out that sickle-cell would become a problem until it actually existed.

As far as I know, technically in nature being homosexual has more disadvantages than advantages since not having heterosexual tendencies means, well, no reproduction (plus losing the drive to combat rivals over females). However, humans are pretty much a solid exception - we're really not a part of nature on a macro level anymore.

 

[AltF4]

Rapture, I think you're slightly misunderstanding Super Bowser. To recap:

I made a point, and as an illustrative example, said that homosexuality can't be hereditary. (Because homosexuals don't reproduce, by-and-large) Super Bowser just pointed out that this statement isn't strictly true. It's conceivable (no pun intended) that there is a hereditary gene which does two things: Provide an immunity to a deadly disease, and also cause homosexuality in 5% of people.

Clearly the gene would be a net evolutionary benefit. Of course there is no evidence to support the existence of such a gene. It's only used as a counterargument to what I said. Nobody's saying they've discovered a "gay gene".

Okay, good. Now continue.

 

[vVv Rapture]

Rapture, I think you're slightly misunderstanding Super Bowser. To recap:

I made a point, and as an illustrative example, said that homosexuality can't be hereditary. (Because homosexuals don't reproduce, by-and-large) Super Bowser just pointed out that this statement isn't strictly true. It's conceivable (no pun intended) that there is a hereditary gene which does two things: Provide an immunity to a deadly disease, and also cause homosexuality in 5% of people.

Clearly the gene would be a net evolutionary benefit. Of course there is no evidence to support the existence of such a gene. It's only used as a counterargument to what I said. Nobody's saying they've discovered a "gay gene".

Okay, good. Now continue.

Oh okay, I see what you're saying. I jumped in there on the wrong note, my apologies.

 

[Alien Vision]

Either you guys thought my post was ****, or you all obliviously went right over it.

 

[Theftz22]

I don't need proof that God exists. All of the ''proof'' I need is by looking at all of the ridiculous claims people make. The errors aren't in the entire religious belief.. It's in the people. Watch how easy they are shut down by atheists who know how to argue competently. Watch at how they lash out just as easy as people who believe in ghosts, aliens, luck, and any other nonsensical source you can think of.

I've been doing my own kind of research, and I can tell you 100% that we do not need God. We can do everything without God. So what is the point of having him? This is my theory..

I believe that there are elements in a human mind (subconsciously) that provokes a reason to create more than what is really there so we are able to control it (because we created it) thus making humans a mad scientist in a way. We created purpose, reason. We created God, luck, aliens, ghosts, and all of these things that can't be proven or disproven, but it's not that hard to tell when something is completely off. They are nothing more but children in adult bodies. God is their imaginary friend, and they used God as a leverage. People rely on EVERYTHING but themselves, so they created something they can put all of their reliability on; since they can't rely on themselves because of how god damn weak they've become. Although it may not be their fault since we are influenced vicariously aswell, and there are many braindead families out there thinking God is more important than food and water. So I digress.

God was created because of fear, and control.

As an atheist, please allow me to tell you that that was quite possibly the worst justification of atheism I've ever read that wasn't in the form of a Youtube comment.

No offense.

 

[Ocean]

alien vision, I don't know if you realized, but this isn't a thread about disproving god. that post was unnecessary.

 

[Dre89]

As an atheist, please allow me to tell you that that was quite possibly the worst justification of atheism I've ever read that wasn't in the form of a Youtube comment.

No offense.

So glad you said it.

But the guy is new so we don't want offend/discourage him too much.

You are a guy right? It'd be so weird having two skirts in the DH...

 

[rvkevin]

Depends what you mean by "relation". Cultural evolution has little to do with genetics (as I stated in the OP), but a lot to do with selection for advantageous traits. Cultures do propagate, and cultures with certain characteristics tend to propagate more than others.

Define culture. Do you define as a group of people that share allele X? Or are you defining it in terms of geographic area, such that a culture is part of a Nation’s history? The former can be selected on at an individual level, the latter cannot be selected on. The latter gets us back to the problem of you thinking that groups of people are selected for advantageous traits, when they are not.

The mosquito doesn't seem like a good analogy to me. The tendency to fly towards zappers was irrelevant for a long time because, you know, zappers didn't exist.

This relates to points 3 and 7 of my OP. The machinery that makes mosquitoes fly into zappers can still be advantageous, even though in some cases this behavior results in death. This shows that while a gene can be beneficial on average, there can be some circumstances where it can “misfire,” resulting in “bad” consequences. Your point also relates to the conditions that the mosquito’s genes were selected. Those conditions have changed so a previously advantageous behavior might be selected against. This is valid to point out if I were arguing that such a behavior was selected for, but that is what I am arguing against, which conveniently is already one of the points I mentioned. I fail to see what the problem is.

Do you agree that a non-religious society could exist? Do you agree that a non-religious society has advantages over a religious society? Then why didn't non-religious societies become prevalent?

There are some tribes that are exclusively atheistic and Europe is becoming increasingly secular and one day might be nearly completely non-religious (There will always be fringe groups…). By advantages, do you mean evolutionary advantages or ethical advantages? As for evolutionary, pretending that religion has a genetic component, it would be hard to define the problem since you would not be able to compare atheistic vs. religious societies. You would need to compare specific examples, such as humanistic vs. Christian societies. This is because there is no set of behaviors described by atheism or religion. For example, some religions prescribe that you go forth and multiply, others prescribe that you remain celibate. This difference has a significant effect on whether such a behavior increases or decreases reproductive fitness. As for the ethical side of things, I think that a society that imbues humanism would be preferable to live in than one that is not. I would simply be repeating what BPC said, so I will refer you to post #11 concerning quality of life.

lolwut? Did you read the first paragraph of the OP? I never said religion is genetic.

You said that someone can’t believe in evolution and think that religion is a negative effect on society because then it wouldn’t be selected for. If you want to find an evolutionary reason for why religion is prevalent, it must first be genetic. Otherwise, you are not talking about evolution. On top of that, I have given a series of examples where selected alleles have led to negative behavior, showing that evolution and bad behavior are not inconsistent. Considering that there is no inconsistency between believing evolution and believing that religion is a social ill, it would increase clarity to leave all talk of evolution out of the conversation.

I have to argue that circumstances HAVEN'T changed? Proving a negative much?

If you argue that conditions in the past selected for religion because it was beneficial, you have to state what those conditions are to see if they still apply. For example, if someone says that the tendency to consume sugar in large quantities is beneficial because it was advantageous to consume calories in the past, they would then need to show that the condition still apply today to see if it still is advantageous. In the example I chose, no, they were selected for when we didn’t have a consistent food source and now that we are in an environment where sugar and food is plentiful, it is no longer beneficial. Such a behavior now results in serious negative health side effects.

As I've showed before, statistics show religious people are happier and healthier.

No, you haven’t. You continue to show your incompetence of interpreting statistics, and your insistence of your abilities is a stunning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[ballin4life]

Just going to throw this out there: the last time people tried to apply Darwinian evolution to human culture, I think they called it something like "Social Darwinism." Make of that what you will - I know it's not yet an argument.

cool story bro. That's like me saying "the last time science tried to apply genetics, they called it eugenics". It's irrelevant.

Ballin, I think rvkevin took the words right out of my mouth.

Well, I responded to his post like 2 above yours ...

But primarily it's that religious belief is not hereditary. But you brushed this aside so quickly. That is a requirement for evolution to occur. Religion is only hereditary is a highly metaphorical sense, as children often tend to become like their parents for completely non biological reasons. But not actual genetic hereditary behavior.

Cultural evolution is actually a much faster process than genetic evolution. As evidenced by the development of culture over a much shorter time period. So I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, religion isn't genetic.

For example, consider homosexuality. For obvious reasons, homosexuality cannot be hereditary. For this reason evolution has not caused it to become extinct. Despite it being "bad for reproduction" it is immune to evolutionary effects because it's a trait not passed down.

lol at the derail this caused

A penchant for the superstitious is clearly present in most humans. Humans also have millions of other failures of supposed "design". This is the folly you get when you think of humans as the end result of a process of design. Instead of what we are: An arbitrary middle point along an evolutionary process.

What's your point? What does design have to do with my argument?

Do you just assume that when someone makes a marginally pro-religion argument that they must support intelligent design? More on this at the bottom of this post.

Define culture. Do you define as a group of people that share allele X? Or are you defining it in terms of geographic area, such that a culture is part of a Nation’s history? The former can be selected on at an individual level, the latter cannot be selected on. The latter gets us back to the problem of you thinking that groups of people are selected for advantageous traits, when they are not. This relates to points 3 and 7 of my OP. The machinery that makes mosquitoes fly into zappers can still be advantageous, even though in some cases this behavior results in death. This shows that while a gene can be beneficial on average, there can be some circumstances where it can “misfire,” resulting in “bad” consequences. Your point also relates to the conditions that the mosquito’s genes were selected. Those conditions have changed so a previously advantageous behavior might be selected against. This is valid to point out if I were arguing that such a behavior was selected for, but that is what I am arguing against, which conveniently is already one of the points I mentioned. I fail to see what the problem is.There are some tribes that are exclusively atheistic and Europe is becoming increasingly secular and one day might be nearly completely non-religious (There will always be fringe groups…). By advantages, do you mean evolutionary advantages or ethical advantages? As for evolutionary, pretending that religion has a genetic component, it would be hard to define the problem since you would not be able to compare atheistic vs. religious societies. You would need to compare specific examples, such as humanistic vs. Christian societies. This is because there is no set of behaviors described by atheism or religion. For example, some religions prescribe that you go forth and multiply, others prescribe that you remain celibate. This difference has a significant effect on whether such a behavior increases or decreases reproductive fitness. As for the ethical side of things, I think that a society that imbues humanism would be preferable to live in than one that is not. I would simply be repeating what BPC said, so I will refer you to post #11 concerning quality of life.You said that someone can’t believe in evolution and think that religion is a negative effect on society because then it wouldn’t be selected for. If you want to find an evolutionary reason for why religion is prevalent, it must first be genetic. Otherwise, you are not talking about evolution. On top of that, I have given a series of examples where selected alleles have led to negative behavior, showing that evolution and bad behavior are not inconsistent. Considering that there is no inconsistency between believing evolution and believing that religion is a social ill, it would increase clarity to leave all talk of evolution out of the conversation.If you argue that conditions in the past selected for religion because it was beneficial, you have to state what those conditions are to see if they still apply. For example, if someone says that the tendency to consume sugar in large quantities is beneficial because it was advantageous to consume calories in the past, they would then need to show that the condition still apply today to see if it still is advantageous. In the example I chose, no, they were selected for when we didn’t have a consistent food source and now that we are in an environment where sugar and food is plentiful, it is no longer beneficial. Such a behavior now results in serious negative health side effects. No, you haven’t. You continue to show your incompetence of interpreting statistics, and your insistence of your abilities is a stunning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

The enter key. Use it.

Groups of people are selected for advantageous traits. I don't see how you can argue against this.

Genetic selection for or against religion would take tons of time. But we can observe cultures with certain traits succeeding. E.g. having hard-working people. Or promoting innovation. Or practicing agriculture (LIKE I SAID IN THE OP). Or having education systems. Or whatever. These behaviors help cultures propagate, just like having eyes helps animals propagate.

I pretty much stated flat out in the OP that evolution is not just genetic. I don't care to quibble over definitions. I believe that my terminology is accepted by biologists (either that, or Paul Ehrlich's The Dominant Animal gravely misled me). I don't see how it makes a difference though either way what you call it. A key point of the theory of evolution is that certain traits and behaviors make an individual more likely to reproduce. Extending this same principle to cultures is all I am doing. And I don't see how you can reject it for cultures when the process of cultural evolution (or "selection for advantageous traits amongst cultures", which is a lot more to type) occurs much more quickly (in part because it isn't just throwing out random mutations).

Note also that I did NOT say that I know for a fact that religion was beneficial. I actually presented a (very brief) argument of why religion shouldn't be beneficial.



Now I guess it is a good time to segue into the ulterior motive behind this thread. I thought of this argument the other day after reading this article (which is related to both genetic and cultural evolution): http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm (good article by the way, maybe someone should make a post about it).

Anyway, I thought it was an interesting topic. So I make this argument that is marginally pro-religion. Now it's time for me to get a bit preachy (get it?):

People that assumed either:

a) that I am pro religion
b) that I am anti-evolution

are wrong. In fact, I was actually kind of hoping someone would present a satisfactory argument or some evidence explaining the prevalence of religion. Instead, I get people assuming that I am pro-religion or anti-evolution.

The best I can come up with is that religion has changed for the worse in recent times in terms of holding up progress (although the Galileo example is preventing me from going too far with that).

I know some of you said this thread title was misleading. I think the argument I presented makes a solid connection between the topics in the thread title. It's just that you expected another religion/intelligent design vs evolution argument.

Anyway, point is that you should attack what someone actually says, and not just the SIDE you think that person is on. And maybe try arguing for a position you don't necessarily agree with every once in a while.

 

[jaswa]

I don't need proof that God exists. All of the ''proof'' I need is by looking at all of the ridiculous claims people make. The errors aren't in the entire religious belief.. It's in the people. Watch how easy they are shut down by atheists who know how to argue competently.

You obviously haven't watched Christopher Hitchens do an appauling job at debating William Lane Craig and what's Richard Dawkins so busy doing that he doesn't have time to debate him, whoops

 

[Dre89]

Rv- How have I misintrepetted statistics?

If multiple sources with opposing agendas concluding the same things is not sufficient, then would statistics ever be sufficient.

As for irreligious people having higher suicide rates, look it up in the Cambridge Companion to Atheism.

As for religious people being healthier, it's on Youtube, some old scientist (can't remember his name, but he says it very early on in his opening speech).

I've only presented the atheist sources so you don't play the bias card on me.

Tell me, how have I misinterpretted? The BoP is now on you to provide statistics proving that I'm wrong.

I don't even know why you're contesting the statistics. From a materialist's point of view, it makes sense that religion has these benefits, because from an evolutionary perspective it would explain not only the fact that religion exists, but that it's universal and intrinsic.

 

[Battlecow]

I still think the "used to be useful, is now superfluous" argument works pretty well.

Also that article seemed really simplistic. ****in' psychologists.

 

[Alien Vision]

Atleast I try.

 

[rvkevin]

Genetic selection for or against religion would take tons of time. But we can observe cultures with certain traits succeeding. E.g. having hard-working people. Or promoting innovation. Or practicing agriculture (LIKE I SAID IN THE OP). Or having education systems. Or whatever. These behaviors help cultures propagate, just like having eyes helps animals propagate.

How do you measure success? How do you measure how well a culture propagates; birth rates, population size, population density, GPD/capita, GDP, literacy rates, average lifespan, standard of living, something else? I feel like you are not strictly talking about selection since many of the things you mention actually decrease it. I would presume that education would include comprehensive sex education, which decreases the rates of pregnancy, which would thwart the propagation of members of the culture. The health system (innovation in the medical field) also has the effect of decreasing the number of children that parents have. In first world countries, parents will have about two kids on average that are very likely to live into adulthood, versus third world countries where they will have, say, seven children on average with an average of two surviving to adulthood. These are two different ways of cultures propagating. Sure, one results in more children suffering, but that is an ethical factor, not a selection factor. With or without these factors, society would still continue propagating, and I don’t see how these increase the rate at which it does. However, these are beneficial ethical considerations that have nothing to do with selection. I think your question would be better stated, “If moral progress is considered beneficial/preferable, then wouldn’t things that are morally good be universal?” The answer to that question is that ethical behaviors are not necessarily selected for, so the two concepts do not share a one to one correlation.

I believe that my terminology is accepted by biologists

Apparently not all: ”The misunderstanding of the Darwinian struggle for existence as a struggle between groups of individuals-the so called “group selection” fallacy-…constantly resurfaces in amateur misinterpretations of Darwinism, and even among some professional biologists who should know better." Pg. 62, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins

Extending this same principle to cultures is all I am doing. And I don't see how you can reject it for cultures when the process of cultural evolution (or "selection for advantageous traits amongst cultures", which is a lot more to type) occurs much more quickly (in part because it isn't just throwing out random mutations).

This goes back to my first point in my OP. There is no selection for advantageous traits amongst cultures. Culture is an aggregation of individuals and if they all share an advantageous allele, then it will be characterized by that culture, but it is still selected on an individual level and not a cultural one. If culture A has members with allele B and culture Y has members with allele Z, then a selection for either B or Z and selection against the other will look like one group has an advantage over the other, when it is the actual members being selected and not the group.

In fact, I was actually kind of hoping someone would present a satisfactory argument or some evidence explaining the prevalence of religion.

It really doesn’t require too much imagination to come up with a satisfactory psychological answer. Humans are fairly gullible and don’t tend to fact check. The success of Fox news is a testament to this fact. Once the idea is introduced into the meme pool, it doesn’t take much for it to spread. However, some of us have learned the benefits of fact-checking. Skepticism is hardly a natural attitude; it is a learned behavior (that is not taught well enough), probably having nothing to do with evolution and probably has no benefit to the propagation of the culture, but does help our culture be a more preferable place to live in.

I don't even know why you're contesting the statistics.

I’m not contesting the data, I am contesting the inferences that you are drawing from it. You fail to understand that certain variables can be dependent on each other and in measuring one you unintentionally measure the other one which results in a false reading. This is why simply measuring the same thing again does not make up for the mistake; it is a flaw in the instrument that needs to be checked. It would be like trying to measure an object with a broken ruler, and when the accuracy is questioned, you measure it again and then claim that not accepting such data would mean that data from rulers could never be sufficient. For statistics, to double check the accuracy of your ruler, you need to measure the dependence between this variable and other variables. If they are dependent, then you may not be measuring what you set out to measure, and the difference in your readings is based on an underlying variable. For the religious study, the suggested underlying variable has been “attending a social gathering once a week.” In other words, you have not shown that religion is beneficial (thus not meeting your burden of proof), since it is equally consistent with the data to say that joining a club is beneficial, and whether it is religious club adds no extra benefit. You need to do the extra work necessarily to make the case that your hypothesis is correct rather than the competing one, but I don’t expect you to understand this because you studied philosophy and lack scientific literacy.

From a materialist's point of view, it makes sense that religion has these benefits, because from an evolutionary perspective it would explain not only the fact that religion exists, but that it's universal and intrinsic.

Even if religion made everyone who was religious euphoric 24/7, that would still not be an adequate evolutionary explanation for the prevalence of religion. Thinking so is to completely understand evolution. Evolution deals with the disparate reproductive rates of alleles, genetic traits. There probably are genetic traits that predispose individuals to accepting religious belief, particularly when they are young. Considering that the vast majority of people become Christians when they are younger than 14, I think that children’s acceptance of authority is adequate explanation enough and that this is simply believing something without critically examining it. If we were to teach critical thinking before religion, there would be much less religion.

 

[ballin4life]

How do you measure success? How do you measure how well a culture propagates; birth rates, population size, population density, GPD/capita, GDP, literacy rates, average lifespan, standard of living, something else? I feel like you are not strictly talking about selection since many of the things you mention actually decrease it. I would presume that education would include comprehensive sex education, which decreases the rates of pregnancy, which would thwart the propagation of members of the culture. The health system (innovation in the medical field) also has the effect of decreasing the number of children that parents have. In first world countries, parents will have about two kids on average that are very likely to live into adulthood, versus third world countries where they will have, say, seven children on average with an average of two surviving to adulthood. These are two different ways of cultures propagating. Sure, one results in more children suffering, but that is an ethical factor, not a selection factor. With or without these factors, society would still continue propagating, and I don’t see how these increase the rate at which it does. However, these are beneficial ethical considerations that have nothing to do with selection. I think your question would be better stated, “If moral progress is considered beneficial/preferable, then wouldn’t things that are morally good be universal?” The answer to that question is that ethical behaviors are not necessarily selected for, so the two concepts do not share a one to one correlation.

I suppose I was just thinking "length of time that the culture exists" and "standard of living" as my measuring points. Don't see what the point is in nitpicking about it though.

Apparently not all: ”The misunderstanding of the Darwinian struggle for existence as a struggle between groups of individuals-the so called “group selection” fallacy-…constantly resurfaces in amateur misinterpretations of Darwinism, and even among some professional biologists who should know better." Pg. 62, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins

Haha Dre is going to flip out at the Richard Dawkins mention.

Anyway, I guess you could say there's a difference between the "Darwinian struggle for existence" and what I'm talking about. Again it doesn't matter as it is just semantics.

This goes back to my first point in my OP. There is no selection for advantageous traits amongst cultures. Culture is an aggregation of individuals and if they all share an advantageous allele, then it will be characterized by that culture, but it is still selected on an individual level and not a cultural one. If culture A has members with allele B and culture Y has members with allele Z, then a selection for either B or Z and selection against the other will look like one group has an advantage over the other, when it is the actual members being selected and not the group.

I'm still NOT talking about genetics. Seriously.

Let's consider a culture where it's standard practice to kill your neighbors while they are asleep and steal their stuff. Do you think such a culture will survive? Just a dumb example, but I seriously don't think you can argue that "cultural selection" doesn't occur.

I'm just not interested in debating that because I think it's obvious.

It really doesn’t require too much imagination to come up with a satisfactory psychological answer. Humans are fairly gullible and don’t tend to fact check. The success of Fox news is a testament to this fact. Once the idea is introduced into the meme pool, it doesn’t take much for it to spread. However, some of us have learned the benefits of fact-checking. Skepticism is hardly a natural attitude; it is a learned behavior (that is not taught well enough), probably having nothing to do with evolution and probably has no benefit to the propagation of the culture, but does help our culture be a more preferable place to live in.

Satisfactory based on what principles? Yes, given my observations of people, I can see how it makes sense given that many are gullible. But why are humans gullible in the first place?

 

[Ocean]

But why are humans gullible in the first place?

because humans are far from perfect.

 

[rvkevin]

I suppose I was just thinking "length of time that the culture exists" and "standard of living" as my measuring points. Don't see what the point is in nitpicking about it though.

The point is that standard of living is not selected for, whereas the reproductive fitness is (i.e. “length of time that a culture exists”). The example I gave demonstrated this. One culture can have higher rates of death for children while having the same reproductive fitness of another culture simply by having a higher birthrate. This would mean that they propagate their culture equally well by the “length of time that the culture exists” criteria. However, they would rank differently when considering the standard of living. This shows that the factors that you are using conflict, which only causes confusion. In order to resolve said confusion, specifically state what effect you intend to measure, the data that enables you to make said conclusion, and how this relates to the overall point of the conversation.

Let's consider a culture where it's standard practice to kill your neighbors while they are asleep and steal their stuff. Do you think such a culture will survive? Just a dumb example, but I seriously don't think you can argue that "cultural selection" doesn't occur.

This could simply be asked as whether extreme positions of xenophobia are reproductively advantageous. I think this is a perfectly acceptable question to ask, but I think you are mistaken to attribute the cause to “culture” because it is not clear that selection pressure occurs at that level. Since you seem to think this is obvious, and are reluctant to explain how selection occurs at the group level, it seems like we are at a standstill.

Satisfactory based on what principles? Yes, given my observations of people, I can see how it makes sense given that many are gullible. But why are humans gullible in the first place?

It’s not clear as to what you are after. You asked why religion is prevalent, which simply needs an explanation for why a particular idea can spread and maintain itself within the population. I have presented a mechanism for this, and now you are shifting the goal post for an explanation for that mechanism. I’m not exactly sure what the reason is for why people are so gullible. There could be an evolutionary reason for why gullibility was selected for. If you put gullibility in a social context, you might say that the person is easily trusting. Would this mean that such a characteristic would be sexually selected for? Think about it.